* On the topic of calibrated coercion, the PM's Press Secretary Chen Hwai Liang has been having a boxing match with blogger-academic Cherian George in the pages of the Straits Times. Singapore Classics provides his analysis.
* Singapore's favourite Irish blogger, Steven McDermott, had promised to open his blog Singabloodypore to contributions by other bloggers. Pleinelune makes his maiden appearance, commenting on BG George Yeo's views about Singaporeans' supposed cultural advantage in dealing with PRC Chinese.
* PM Lee Hsien Loong professes not to be homophobic. However, Yawning Bread dissects Lee's views in decisive fashion. Lee's self-contradictions are laid bare for all to see.
* Jeff Yen shares his thoughts on World Mental Health Day. He thinks that compared to many other places in the world, Singapore is pretty lacking in its support for mentally ill people.
* XenoBoy imagines a different kind of Straits Times, driven by the passion to do what's right. Mr Wang considers himself too old. He won't live to see the day.
* A Singapore entrepreneur, Gwen, ponders the pros and cons of taking your company to an IPO.
* Merv has thoughts about breastfeeding in public. By the way, Mr Wang disagrees with Merv.
* Oh, and here's someone who thinks that people who read Mr Wang's blog are pretty "intellectual". That means you too, Mr Miyagi!
13 October 2005
Some Worthy Reads
Calibrated Coercion
Blogger Cherian George wrote an article about the Singapore government's use of "calibrated coercion" to stifle the expression of dissenting opinions. Here's the article. Notwithstanding the fact that ST journalist Carl Skadian thinks that bloggers are worse than porn stars, the Straits Times went on to publish blogger Cherian George's article.
Chen Hwai Liang, Press Secretary to the Prime Minister, then responded with a strongly worded letter to the ST Forum expressing, shall we say, some unhappiness with Cherian's view. Personally, I feel that the Prime Minister's Office generally missed, or chose to miss, the real point of Cherian's article. But I shall not elaborate - if you are interested, you can read Cherian's further response to Chen Hwai Liang in the ST Forum today, or check out the relevant hyperlinks over at Singapore Angle.
The purpose of my present post is more modest. It is simply to quote a certain part of Chen Hwai Leong's letter and invite you to take a closer look at the underlying implications:
(1) Dr George wrote a critical article;
(2) Dr George's article was published in the Straits Times;
(3) This shows that the government tolerates dissenting views and encourages people to speak up and express their opinions.
Now Mr Wang will tell you what (1), (2) and (3) also show. If we accept what Hwai Liang said to be true (please be clear, hor, Hwai Liang, I am not saying that what you said is not true, therefore no defamation - I express no view on whether what you say is actually true or not true), then it follows that:
(a) critical articles can only be published in the Straits Times if the government tolerates them; and
(b) therefore the government can control what is or is not published in the Straits Times; and
(c) therefore the Straits Times is government-controlled and not exactly a "free press".
"Yawn", I hear some of you say, "What else is new, Mr Wang? We already knew that the Singapore press is ranked one hundred and thirty-something or forty-something in the world for press freedom. Tell us something new, Mr Wang."
Well, I guess I'm just pretty tickled by the fact that the above conclusions follow logically and directly from the utterances of none than the PM's Press Secretary himself. Hehehe.
Finally, I thought it was pretty funny that Hwai Liang mentioned "zero tolerance for law breaking". Funny because just very recently, on 7 October, we saw a law-breaker in a highly publicised case being let off. No jail, no fine, no prosecution, just a warning. And the law-breaker wasn't even named.
(Wait - please be clear, hor, Chen Hwai Liang, not saying that you're dishonest or stupid, just saying that you're not quite right, nobody's perfect you know, so you can't sue me for defamation, anyway I call on the defences of (a) justification and (b) fair comment, this clearly being a matter of public interest).
There's also an ST article on 10 October hinting at the identity of the Elephant Man:
(Wait, nobody sue me ok, let me explain, I've never believed in zero tolerance for law breaking, I believe that we must always be flexible and creative and leave room for discretion and human judgment in the criminal justice legal system, I think that thie Elephant case was handled wonderfully, wonderfully, wonderfully.)
Chen Hwai Liang, Press Secretary to the Prime Minister, then responded with a strongly worded letter to the ST Forum expressing, shall we say, some unhappiness with Cherian's view. Personally, I feel that the Prime Minister's Office generally missed, or chose to miss, the real point of Cherian's article. But I shall not elaborate - if you are interested, you can read Cherian's further response to Chen Hwai Liang in the ST Forum today, or check out the relevant hyperlinks over at Singapore Angle.
The purpose of my present post is more modest. It is simply to quote a certain part of Chen Hwai Leong's letter and invite you to take a closer look at the underlying implications:
"...... zero tolerance for law breaking does not equate to zero tolerance for dissenting views. On the contrary, we encourage people to speak up and express their opinions on national policies and community life, so that out of the diversity of views a consensus can be forged, and a better decision made for the good of the nation.Heheh. There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. (Please be clear hor, Hwai Liang, I meant that figuratively, I'm not saying that you're a real horse, therefore no defamation). Hwai Liang has just told you that:
Dr George's critical article was published in The Straits Times, contradicting his own claims."
(1) Dr George wrote a critical article;
(2) Dr George's article was published in the Straits Times;
(3) This shows that the government tolerates dissenting views and encourages people to speak up and express their opinions.
Now Mr Wang will tell you what (1), (2) and (3) also show. If we accept what Hwai Liang said to be true (please be clear, hor, Hwai Liang, I am not saying that what you said is not true, therefore no defamation - I express no view on whether what you say is actually true or not true), then it follows that:
(a) critical articles can only be published in the Straits Times if the government tolerates them; and
(b) therefore the government can control what is or is not published in the Straits Times; and
(c) therefore the Straits Times is government-controlled and not exactly a "free press".
"Yawn", I hear some of you say, "What else is new, Mr Wang? We already knew that the Singapore press is ranked one hundred and thirty-something or forty-something in the world for press freedom. Tell us something new, Mr Wang."
Well, I guess I'm just pretty tickled by the fact that the above conclusions follow logically and directly from the utterances of none than the PM's Press Secretary himself. Hehehe.
Finally, I thought it was pretty funny that Hwai Liang mentioned "zero tolerance for law breaking". Funny because just very recently, on 7 October, we saw a law-breaker in a highly publicised case being let off. No jail, no fine, no prosecution, just a warning. And the law-breaker wasn't even named.
Oct 7, 2005Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Elephant Man should have been prosecuted. I'm actually pretty happy that he wasn't. But it does go to show that Hwai Liang wasn't not quite right about "zero tolerance", was he?
WHITE ELEPHANTS SAGA
Police give stern warning to protester
By Leslie Koh
THE Case Of The Eight White Elephants has finally been wrapped up.
The punishment for putting up eight cutouts of cartoon elephants in front of Buangkok MRT station to protest against its non-opening: A stern warning from the police.
The placards, they said in a two-paragraph statement issued yesterday, did not cause public annoyance or a nuisance. But they did infringe on a law requiring people to obtain a permit before putting up posters or exhibits for public display.
So the police have issued a stern warning, instead of prosecuting the person who did it. They did not name the culprit.
(Wait - please be clear, hor, Chen Hwai Liang, not saying that you're dishonest or stupid, just saying that you're not quite right, nobody's perfect you know, so you can't sue me for defamation, anyway I call on the defences of (a) justification and (b) fair comment, this clearly being a matter of public interest).
There's also an ST article on 10 October hinting at the identity of the Elephant Man:
Oct 10, 2005So here we have another clue as to another possible good reason why the law-breaker was not prosecuted. It could have been rather embarrassing for a certain committee in a PAP constituency, and a certain PAP Member of Parliament, could it not?
'Fight' to open Buangkok MRT station goes on
By Lydia Lim
GRASSROOTS leaders of Punggol South will fight on to get Buangkok MRT station opened.
And they will come up with more unusual ways to get the message across.
Grassroots leader Sunny Leow told reporters yesterday: 'We'll still be very creative, but within the law.'
Mr Leow, 54, chairs the Punggol South Citizens' Consultative Committee.
The businessman is believed to be the one who received a police warning after an investigation into the placing of eight white-elephant placards on the road divider outside the station.
The incident became a national talking point.
(Wait, nobody sue me ok, let me explain, I've never believed in zero tolerance for law breaking, I believe that we must always be flexible and creative and leave room for discretion and human judgment in the criminal justice legal system, I think that thie Elephant case was handled wonderfully, wonderfully, wonderfully.)
12 October 2005
On Illegitimate Children in Singapore
ST journalist Leong Ching has an article about the illegitimate children in Singapore, and the rights of their fathers vis-a-viz the mothers. But I get the impression that Leong Ching doesn't really understand her chosen topic. Let's take a look:
Leong Ching's error is that she's seeing things purely in the context of illegitimate children. She thinks like this, "A man and his mistress have sex and the woman becomes pregnant. The man should have the right, or at least some say, to decide whether the woman should have an abortion or not. If the man does not want the child, but the woman does, then the woman should pay for the child's upbringing herself."
Actually, the Women's Charter is surprisingly enlightened on these issues. As far as the child's right to maintenance is concerned, the Women's Charter does not draw any distinction based on whether the parents are not married or married, or married but not to each other, or are divorced. In fact, where the child's rights to maintenance are concerned, the Women's Charter does not even draw a distinction between fathers and mothers.
I think that's fair. That's very reasonable. I love section 68 of the Women's Charter. I've loved it ever since the first time I came across it as a law student. To me, it is intuitively one of the RIGHTEST legal provisions I've ever seen (pardon the grammar, but you know what I mean).
The important thing is that the law will compel the parents to support the child, because the child is the most vulnerable one. The innocent one. The one unable to fend for himself. The one who didn't ask to be born. Well, he was born, so the parents have to look after him. This is the overriding consideration. No if's, no but's. This is a "just-do-it" situation. And it should be.
Despite what Leong Ching thinks, it is just not right that a father (or a mother, for that matter) should be able to say, "Hey, I never wanted this child, I told you that, YOU wanted it, now it's YOUR problem, I'm not paying a cent." And then just walk away.
In Singapore, land of the Women's Charter and pro-family policies, a man cannot be a bigamist but apparently, he is free to sow his wild oats and head as many households as his wallet can support.I later laughed at this, because Leong Ching so confidently referred to the Women's Charter, and then later displays her ignorance of how it actually works.
For family lawyer Foo Siew Fern, there is nothing wrong with the way things stand. You cannot make adultery illegal. So if a man wants to sleep around, he has better take responsibility for his actions, says the straight-talking lawyer who has been handling matrimonial cases for 14 years.Here comes Leong Ching's own take on the matter:
There are two ways in which the man can take responsibility, she says. One is to settle the matter with a lump-sum payment. The other is to pay monthly maintenance. The reasoning is that a child has a right to claim his biological father's assets, whether his parents are married or not.
The chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, Mr Sin Boon Ann, puts it this way: 'As a choice of society's values, we have decided under the Women's Charter to make it a right of women to expect monogamous marriages as a measure of decent conduct.
'So when a man begins to have dalliances with other women and worse still, has issues from that relationship, should the mistress be penalised? More importantly, should the child be penalised?
'For the mistress, I think our position is clear. A person who knowingly enters into a relationship with a man cannot and should not be expected to benefit from that relationship legally.'
It is the child, he argues, who should be entitled to maintenance from his father.
He makes two important points: A man should pay for his mistake and the child should not be made to suffer because two adults have made a mistake.
... I would argue that while the man should pay for his mistake, he did not make the mistake alone. Unless the woman was raped, she was a consenting partner in the relationship.
If we speak then of a mistake committed by two people, surely both should have a say in how this mistake can be rectified?
Why should it be that the woman can compel the man to fork out maintenance money because she wants to keep the child? Think of the reverse situation: If she does not want to carry the child, but the man does, he cannot compel her to carry the baby to term.
Why is the relationship asymmetrical in this way? Both parties should have equal say in whether to have the baby or not, and in how to take care of the child.
If the woman wants to keep the baby, she should either persuade her partner to agree or make sure that she can afford to bring up the baby herself. If neither party wants the child, then she can either abort or carry the child to term and give it up for adoption.
If she does not want to do either, then she must be prepared to pay for the child's upbringing herself.
I do not argue for abortion, but I do argue for the right of the man, as well as the woman, to choose. Now, it seems that the man, and by extension his 'first' family, do not have a choice.
Leong Ching's error is that she's seeing things purely in the context of illegitimate children. She thinks like this, "A man and his mistress have sex and the woman becomes pregnant. The man should have the right, or at least some say, to decide whether the woman should have an abortion or not. If the man does not want the child, but the woman does, then the woman should pay for the child's upbringing herself."
Actually, the Women's Charter is surprisingly enlightened on these issues. As far as the child's right to maintenance is concerned, the Women's Charter does not draw any distinction based on whether the parents are not married or married, or married but not to each other, or are divorced. In fact, where the child's rights to maintenance are concerned, the Women's Charter does not even draw a distinction between fathers and mothers.
68. .... it shall be the duty of a parent to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his or her children, whether they are in his or her custody or the custody of any other person, and whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, either by providing them with such accommodation, clothing, food and education as may be reasonable having regard to his or her means and station in life or by paying the cost thereof.In other words, whether you're the father or the mother and whether you're married or not married, you have to look after your own children and provide them with accommodation, clothing, good and education. And the level of care you provide has to be something reasonable having regard to your means and station in life. For instance, if you are a blue-collar worker, then perhaps the court will order you to contribute $400 per month, but if you are a high-flying professional, then perhaps the court will order you to contribute $4000 per month.
I think that's fair. That's very reasonable. I love section 68 of the Women's Charter. I've loved it ever since the first time I came across it as a law student. To me, it is intuitively one of the RIGHTEST legal provisions I've ever seen (pardon the grammar, but you know what I mean).
The important thing is that the law will compel the parents to support the child, because the child is the most vulnerable one. The innocent one. The one unable to fend for himself. The one who didn't ask to be born. Well, he was born, so the parents have to look after him. This is the overriding consideration. No if's, no but's. This is a "just-do-it" situation. And it should be.
Despite what Leong Ching thinks, it is just not right that a father (or a mother, for that matter) should be able to say, "Hey, I never wanted this child, I told you that, YOU wanted it, now it's YOUR problem, I'm not paying a cent." And then just walk away.
11 October 2005
Blogs - A Medium in Search of a Role
Mr Wang has just read an article by Koh Buck Song in the Straits Times about blogging - it's entitled "Blogs - A Medium in Search of a Role". And he can't help feeling that this is another one of those rather misconceived MSM articles that try but fail to understand blogging.
Koh keeps talking about "durability" and "value" and how blogs struggle to build and maintain a readership. He thinks that blogging is a fad that cannot last unless the author can "keep churning fresh, engaging material, re-inventing content while retaining some consistency of approach to foster the blog's character. It is a long-haul game of branding, just like in the real world, and demands plenty of time".
Koh doesn't seem to understand a few key points. The first is that blogs, unlike newspapers, are not profit-driven; bloggers blog out of personal interest. The second is that anyone can set up a new blog in three minutes flat, or delete an existing one in five seconds.
Put these two points together, and what do you see? If a blogger loses interest, if he feels that he has nothing to say, well, he simply drops out. No loss to the world. Not such a huge loss to him either. Journalists depend on the press for their livelihood; bloggers don't depend on their blogs for a living.
Meanwhile hundreds or thousands of new blogs spring up each day. Millions of existing blogs go on. These are powered by people who ARE interested, and who feel that they still DO have something to say. Individual blogs may die, but blogs collectively march on.
What about the value of blogs, another point which Koh harps on? He suggests that bloggers can't offer much value to readers. Well, think about it this way. Ask yourself - which ten living people in the world do you think could possibly have thoughts, knowledge and ideas that are of great value to you? Next, ask yourself - do these ten people have Internet access? Probably yes. That means that all these ten people are potential bloggers.
That's the real power of blogging. It's instantly accessible to so many people in the world. And I believe that there are many, many people in the world who are able to write something of value to other people. Among bloggers, there are teachers, lawyers, parents, doctors, insurance agents, journalists, pastors, physiotherapists, poets, bankers, human resource officers, academics, business managers, chefs, scientists, accountants, CEOs, old people, young people, people of different races, religions and nationalities - each with unique backgrounds, insights and experiences to share.
Blogging makes their thoughts available to the world. Oh, and devices such as Technorati, Blogsearch and hyperlinking help, of course.
Koh makes a big deal out of the effort it takes to keep a blog going. Well, I think he exaggerates. People blog about what they are interested in, and naturally they would do what they're interested in, whether blogs exist or not. Take for example Reader's Eye, the blog of award-winning poet Gilbert Koh. Because Gilbert is interested in poetry, he'd be writing it and putting effort into it, regardless of whether blogs exist or not. However, it's thanks to the existence of blogs that he can cut and paste and share his works with the whole world (or whoever in the world is interested in his poetry).
And if one day, Gilbert loses interest in poetry, well, he'll end Reader's Eye. And if it ends, it ends. It was good while it lasted. Life goes on. There will be other poets, and other bloggers, and other poets who are bloggers. Just use BlogSearch, or perhaps just start exploring from Gilbert's blogroll.
Three cheers for Blogger!
Koh keeps talking about "durability" and "value" and how blogs struggle to build and maintain a readership. He thinks that blogging is a fad that cannot last unless the author can "keep churning fresh, engaging material, re-inventing content while retaining some consistency of approach to foster the blog's character. It is a long-haul game of branding, just like in the real world, and demands plenty of time".
Koh doesn't seem to understand a few key points. The first is that blogs, unlike newspapers, are not profit-driven; bloggers blog out of personal interest. The second is that anyone can set up a new blog in three minutes flat, or delete an existing one in five seconds.
Put these two points together, and what do you see? If a blogger loses interest, if he feels that he has nothing to say, well, he simply drops out. No loss to the world. Not such a huge loss to him either. Journalists depend on the press for their livelihood; bloggers don't depend on their blogs for a living.
Meanwhile hundreds or thousands of new blogs spring up each day. Millions of existing blogs go on. These are powered by people who ARE interested, and who feel that they still DO have something to say. Individual blogs may die, but blogs collectively march on.
What about the value of blogs, another point which Koh harps on? He suggests that bloggers can't offer much value to readers. Well, think about it this way. Ask yourself - which ten living people in the world do you think could possibly have thoughts, knowledge and ideas that are of great value to you? Next, ask yourself - do these ten people have Internet access? Probably yes. That means that all these ten people are potential bloggers.
That's the real power of blogging. It's instantly accessible to so many people in the world. And I believe that there are many, many people in the world who are able to write something of value to other people. Among bloggers, there are teachers, lawyers, parents, doctors, insurance agents, journalists, pastors, physiotherapists, poets, bankers, human resource officers, academics, business managers, chefs, scientists, accountants, CEOs, old people, young people, people of different races, religions and nationalities - each with unique backgrounds, insights and experiences to share.
Blogging makes their thoughts available to the world. Oh, and devices such as Technorati, Blogsearch and hyperlinking help, of course.
Koh makes a big deal out of the effort it takes to keep a blog going. Well, I think he exaggerates. People blog about what they are interested in, and naturally they would do what they're interested in, whether blogs exist or not. Take for example Reader's Eye, the blog of award-winning poet Gilbert Koh. Because Gilbert is interested in poetry, he'd be writing it and putting effort into it, regardless of whether blogs exist or not. However, it's thanks to the existence of blogs that he can cut and paste and share his works with the whole world (or whoever in the world is interested in his poetry).
And if one day, Gilbert loses interest in poetry, well, he'll end Reader's Eye. And if it ends, it ends. It was good while it lasted. Life goes on. There will be other poets, and other bloggers, and other poets who are bloggers. Just use BlogSearch, or perhaps just start exploring from Gilbert's blogroll.
Three cheers for Blogger!
What the Straits Times Doesn't Understand About Home Ownership For Poor Singaporeans
Duh. Well, of course. Quite some time ago, the government already decided to stop building three-room flats, remember? You wouldn't be able to get a new 3-room flat if you wanted to. And that's the problem. Poor families are forced to purchase 4-room flats even if it would be a much smarter financial decision for them to get a smaller, cheaper one.ST Oct 11, 2005
9 in 10 of S'pore's poor own homes
More than half own four-room flats or bigger, survey finds
By Daryl LooTHEY are among the poorest in Singapore but nearly nine in 10 of the bottom 20 per cent of HDB families own the roof over their head.
Even more notable is the size of the homes they own: more than half own four-room or bigger flats.
And if these 87 per cent of lower-income families sell their flats at current valuation, most will have quite a handsome sum in hand even after settling their HDB loan.At least the Straits Times understands that these poor families still have a HDB loan to settle. Which means that along with struggling to pay for their rice, water and electricity bills, they also struggle each month to pay their loan interest to the HDB.
The more obvious point is that if these families sell their homes, they will be homeless. Gee, how come the Straits Times didn't think of that? So clever.
Technically known as home equity, calculations by the Department of Statistics estimate it to be an average $138,000.Wow, such respectable sums. Now if the Singapore government allowed you and your family to camp out in the HDB void decks or on Changi Beach in a tent, that would be nice. However, neither option is available, which you would know if you have been keeping up with the news.
But even more telling is when these figures are compared to the national average, which shows that 93 per cent of all HDB dwellers own their flats and that their home equity is $154,000.
Experts said they point essentially to two things:The average HDB family can then set up camp and live in the forested areas around MacRitchie Reservoir. That is, until the park rangers chase them away.
The national policy of home ownership, started in 1964, has worked well enough to reach the poor
When needed, the average HDB family can sell its property and have a tidy sum.
Nanyang Technological University Associate Professor Tan Khee Giap said the success of the home ownership policy, 'means it is now extremely critical for the Government to make sure the prices of HDB's cheaper flats do not dip'.Maybe it's more critical for the Government to set up some new camping grounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)